by Lorenzo Ricolfi
The Italian version of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species opens with a preface by Luca and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza. They are two of the four children of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, an Italian geneticist, academic, researcher, and professor emeritus at Stanford University in California, who died in 2018 and became known for his research activities in population genetics. He was also involved in anthropology and history in his studies of human migration.
The Italian version of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species opens with a preface by Luca and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza. They are two of the four children of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, an Italian geneticist, academic, researcher, and professor emeritus at Stanford University in California, who died in 2018 and became known for his research activities in population genetics. He was also involved in anthropology and history in his studies of human migration.
From https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/obituaries/luigi-cavalli-sforza-dies.html
Since I could not find the English version of the preface anywhere, I would like to translate and summarize it in this article. Therefore, the following text is a summary and translation of the preface written by Luca and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza.
Translation: "It is said that when Laplace, the great French astronomer, presented Napoleon with a copy of his Celestial Mechanics, in which he described universal gravitation and advanced hypotheses on the formation of the solar system, Napoleon remarked: "Mr Laplace, they tell me that you have written this big book on the design of the universe, without ever mentioning its Creator". "This is a hypothesis I did not need", replied Laplace. When Napoleon, amused, reported this conviction to the mathematician Lagrange, he exclaimed: "What a beautiful hypothesis! It explains a lot! ". Two hundred years later, modern texts on astronomy continue to describe the behaviour of celestial bodies without the need for a God creator. In science, no unnecessary hypotheses are introduced to explain events. While no one nowadays argues about divine intervention in the history of the cosmos, a similar question resurfaces from time to time in biology. Since Darwin's time, the theory of evolution has made enormous progress and can explain a great deal of the history of life. Today, our relationship with primates is no longer in question. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Translation: "It is said that when Laplace, the great French astronomer, presented Napoleon with a copy of his Celestial Mechanics, in which he described universal gravitation and advanced hypotheses on the formation of the solar system, Napoleon remarked: "Mr Laplace, they tell me that you have written this big book on the design of the universe, without ever mentioning its Creator". "This is a hypothesis I did not need", replied Laplace. When Napoleon, amused, reported this conviction to the mathematician Lagrange, he exclaimed: "What a beautiful hypothesis! It explains a lot! ". Two hundred years later, modern texts on astronomy continue to describe the behaviour of celestial bodies without the need for a God creator. In science, no unnecessary hypotheses are introduced to explain events. While no one nowadays argues about divine intervention in the history of the cosmos, a similar question resurfaces from time to time in biology. Since Darwin's time, the theory of evolution has made enormous progress and can explain a great deal of the history of life. Today, our relationship with primates is no longer in question. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
From Stutz, 2014: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264417273_Embodied_Niche_Construction_in_the_Hominin_Lineage_Semiotic_Structure_and_Sustained_Attention_in_Human_Embodied_Cognition/citations
Nevertheless, it still meets with the most vigorous resistance from the ultra-conservative fringes of Baptist Christians (a powerful political force in the south of the United States) and ultra-orthodox Jews. On the other hand, it does not seem to create any difficulties for either Catholicism or Islam. What is questioned today is whether evolution is sufficient to explain the extraordinary complexity of life: how is it possible that living beings have developed such a variety of forms? How can an organ such as the eye have achieved its extreme complexity only under natural forces?
From: https://www.phos.co.uk/journal/the-evolution-of-sight
Someone says there must be an Intelligent Design guiding the history of life, intervening in the mechanisms of evolution (with a view to some goal, it is assumed, but this is not stated). The Intelligent Design movement was born as a political fact in the United States; it is promoted by foundations financed by ultra-conservative billionaires and engaged in specific activities, such as supporting those who sue state schools to have the biblical account of creation taught alongside the theory of evolution as an equal alternative. The extreme right-wing label with which the movement was born does not help its spread in Europe, where there has been enough ideology. The absence of scientific arguments makes it fiddly to counter directly. An organism can only live if it interacts with its living environment to obtain food and can only pass on its DNA to the next generation if it becomes an adult and reproduces. However, the environment is constantly changing. Only those who remain 'adapted' to their environment can continue to live. Natural selection acts by automatically filtering, like a rigid sieve, the best types to survive and reproduce, environment by environment and circumstance by circumstance.
From: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Adaptive-radiation
The theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection says precisely this: living species evolve under the impetus of chance and necessity. Darwin's theory of evolution provides an excellent key to interpreting what we see around us and deepening our knowledge of the molecules that make life possible." - End of translation.
Science and religion have always had harsh disagreements about explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution (of both abiotic and biotic factors). My opinion is that science should not be concerned with the beliefs of others if the views of others do not limit science. But, at the same time, religions should help scientists find the right path following moral rules and ethics. Both science and religion are great powers that give humankind its singularity. Therefore, they should work together to make our species more just, educated and happy.
Science and religion have always had harsh disagreements about explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution (of both abiotic and biotic factors). My opinion is that science should not be concerned with the beliefs of others if the views of others do not limit science. But, at the same time, religions should help scientists find the right path following moral rules and ethics. Both science and religion are great powers that give humankind its singularity. Therefore, they should work together to make our species more just, educated and happy.
RSS Feed